Reading mode: Light Dark

Weirdo lens you wish existed? (Realistic)

Go to last post
AcquiredTaste said:
Making it a zoom, even a 10mm zoom, would add a radical amount of complexity and size, however
Click to expand...
Ohh!!! Sorry for the confusion. I meant a prime lens somewhere in that range. 40mm and 50mm are common. Pentax had 43mm. Contax had 45mm.

I was also suggesting a “standard FOV at f/1.0” and 200mm prime tele at f/1.8 (or even 180mm).
 
RazorSharpWO said:
Tuonov2 said:
Why?

If the sensor area is roughly 860mm², the image takes up 400mm² you are left with 460mm² of background, how can this be different when the sensor size is equal and the image size is equal?
Click to expand...
Methinks you worry too much about "the sensor" ... and don't fully comprehend the differences in perspective.

Meaning how far away you are to achieve the same framing ...

To illustrate, consider a wooden fence with a peephole
  • The peephole = the framing.
  • Your eye = the sensor.
Suppose on the other end of the wooden fence is a lush grassy field. The wooden fence is too tall to look over, but you can see the lush grassy field if you look through the peephole.

The closer you get to the peephole, the more of the grassy field you can see.

Conversely, the farther you step back from the peephole, the less of the grassy field you can see.

If you put your eye right up to the peephole, you can see everything.
If you step back 6 feet, you can barely see anything.

Your eye (the sensor) remains the same. The framing (1:1) = the peephole, remains the same. However, your proximity (perspective) to the peephole, literally determines everything about what you can experience of the background. The green grass.

That is, essentially, the difference between shooting "the same framing" using a 50mm macro lens, vs. shooting at 200 mm.

If you're shooting a 50 mm lens, getting to 1:1, you are so close to the subject, that everything in the background can be seen.

If you're shooting at 200 mm lens, you're back a lot further, and so only a minimal portion of the background can be seen in the frame.

Again if you actually take the time to look at the link I posted, three messages ago, you will comprehend what's being said.

At 200 mm lens frames only 1/4 the background of the 50 mm lens. The background is also much further away from the sensor. This combination, in and of itself, reduces the amount of background and also the focus of the background. Let alone augmenting the blur w/ f/2.

If you still don't understand, then keep doing what you're doing.

However, I hope this example provide some clarity as to how you've been completely missing the point of everything that's been said so far.
Click to expand...
I did read the link.

All of those examples have the same amount of background.

I haven't once mentioned background blur, I was questioning BasilG on this statement.

because their narrower angle of view includes a smaller background area overall.
 
1) a Nikkor Z version or equivalent of the wonderful 105mm f/1.4E

2) PC-E F-mount lenses with built in rotating tripod mount collars to allow parallax-free shifting. I’m not interested in tilt so I’d scrap that movement. Yes I know there are auxiliary frames (like the Rogeti TSE Mark 3 for Canon YSE lenses.
 
Tuonov2 said:
BasilG said:
Tuonov2 said:
BasilG said:
No.
Click to expand...
Please explain the maths to me.
Click to expand...
No maths involved. But having a go at a simple drawing might help.
Tuonov2 said:
If shooting at 1:1, the object is the same size on the sensor no matter the focal length
Click to expand...
That's right.
Tuonov2 said:
ergo the background area must be equal.
Click to expand...
That's wrong.
Click to expand...
Why?

If the sensor area is roughly 860mm², the image takes up 400mm² you are left with 460mm² of background, how can this be different when the sensor size is equal and the image size is equal?
Click to expand...
The subject and the background are not on the same plane. That's why the background is the background. Therefore, angle of view matters. Before you reply again, make a drawing (subject, background, two lenses with different viewing angles shooting the subject from different distances as appropriate for the angles of view) as I suggested above.
 
Tuonov2 said:
I did read the link.

All of those examples have the same amount of background.
Click to expand...
Ok. I now understand what you mean, and you missed what the discussion is about. This is not about the amount of background as a proportion of the image, this is about how much of the background (as in: how many square feet or square inches of real-life greenery) is visible in the image. In other words: If you were to place a ruler in the background, how many inches of the ruler (though blurry) would be visible in the image?
 
Last edited:
150mm f/4 compact prime
 
anotherMike said:
Never seen the "old 200/1.4 formula". Nikons done some crazy lenses and patents, but I haven't come across that one....

Don't think I'd want to pick up a 200/1.4 myself.....
Click to expand...
It wasn't terrible, though that's all based upon personal preference, now I'd probably complain out it. Before the 200 2 afs came out (version 1) there were at least two different 200 1.4 prototypes in circulation, I always hoped that it would end up getting into production......still hoping it will.
 
lgs6632 said:
anotherMike said:
Never seen the "old 200/1.4 formula". Nikons done some crazy lenses and patents, but I haven't come across that one....

Don't think I'd want to pick up a 200/1.4 myself.....
Click to expand...
It wasn't terrible, though that's all based upon personal preference, now I'd probably complain out it. Before the 200 2 afs came out (version 1) there were at least two different 200 1.4 prototypes in circulation, I always hoped that it would end up getting into production......still hoping it will.
Click to expand...
Could you post some links, pictures, anything? I couldn't find even a whiff of such a lens.
 
Biggs23 said:
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
Click to expand...
OK maybe not so weird, but personally I'm tired of carrying around an assortment of lenses when I travel. I'd personally like to see a f/2.8 constant aperture travel zoom, like a 14 to 300mm. I'm sure this could be done, but the question then is how big and heavy would it be, being a fixed 2.8?
 
sirhawkeye64 said:
Biggs23 said:
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
Click to expand...
OK maybe not so weird, but personally I'm tired of carrying around an assortment of lenses when I travel. I'd personally like to see a f/2.8 constant aperture travel zoom, like a 14 to 300mm. I'm sure this could be done, but the question then is how big and heavy would it be, being a fixed 2.8?
Click to expand...
That's definitely outside the range of realistic. It would weigh 50lbs if it's even possible.
 
Biggs23 said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
Biggs23 said:
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
Click to expand...
OK maybe not so weird, but personally I'm tired of carrying around an assortment of lenses when I travel. I'd personally like to see a f/2.8 constant aperture travel zoom, like a 14 to 300mm. I'm sure this could be done, but the question then is how big and heavy would it be, being a fixed 2.8?
Click to expand...
That's definitely outside the range of realistic. It would weigh 50lbs if it's even possible.
Click to expand...
I think there's no question of IF it could be done, but yes the question would be weight. Even if they shorted it to say 14-200mm.


(NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread.)
 
Interesting. I've done a lot of research into Nikons prototypes, never heard of that. They had a 20/1.4 decades before anyone thought of one, so they did do some interesting things....

Do you have any further information on the 200/1.4?
 
sirhawkeye64 said:
Biggs23 said:
sirhawkeye64 said:
Biggs23 said:
Another thread was posted about a previous rumor of a 24-105 f/2.8 - 4 (which obviously never materialized and likely never will) and it got me thinking about what lenses I wish existed.

Now, throwing physics and reality aside, there's a lot of hypothetical lenses that I wish existed, but that's kind of a pointless exercise. So my question is simple, what REALISTIC (or at least quasi-realistic) lenses do you wish existed and would definitely buy if they did?

I'm not really talking about pretty normal lenses that already exist but just aren't made in the Z mount, such as an 85mm f/1.2. I'm thinking of lenses that don't exist at all, or at least don't exist in a modern format.

I'll post my answer in a reply.
Click to expand...
OK maybe not so weird, but personally I'm tired of carrying around an assortment of lenses when I travel. I'd personally like to see a f/2.8 constant aperture travel zoom, like a 14 to 300mm. I'm sure this could be done, but the question then is how big and heavy would it be, being a fixed 2.8?
Click to expand...
That's definitely outside the range of realistic. It would weigh 50lbs if it's even possible.
Click to expand...
I think there's no question of IF it could be done, but yes the question would be weight. Even if they shorted it to say 14-200mm.
Click to expand...
I'm still betting 30lbs+.
 
anotherMike said:
Little factoid: The Nikon 200/2 is actually an F/1.84 lens (you can see it on the patent). They weren't as into trying to market it as such, so they left it as 200/2 since that was the old 200/2 AIS was.

A 200/1.4 I guess wouldn't be totally impossible - I mean, Nikon had the 300/2, which was a monster (I talked with an old timer news shooter who had one or had access to the one in the pool and he said while it was amazing, it was a pain in the you-know-what due to the size/weight.) So a 200/1.4 wouldn't really be any crazier.
Click to expand...
When I was hired to be part of the official team of photographers covering the rededication /reopening of the Statue of Liberty and the Liberty Weekend festivities back in July 1986, Nikon offered me the use of the 300mm f/2 AI-S and a couple of teleconverters for the week. I thought “oh that would be cool!” I would be the sole photographer of the Pilot Boat leading the Parade of Tall Ships into and then out of New York City Harbor and up the Hudson River.

I picked it up in its shipping trunk from the NPS desk, picked up my assigned lot (100 36 exposure rolls) of Pro Kodachrome 64 - and got as far as the elevator.

There was simply no way on God’s green, brown, and blue earth I was going to be able to haul both that monster and all that film, along with my usual kit ( F2 and F3hp bodies with motor drives, 15mm Nikkor, 16mm fisheye Nikkor, a 28mm PC Nikkor, an 85mm f/2 Nikkor, and a 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor, extra batteries, and a couple of tripods) around New York City, Brooklyn, Staten Island, the Pilot boat, and Zodiacs for a week!

So I took the lens back to the NPS desk and requested a 400mm f/3.5 instead. Now that was a lovely lens!

The Nikkor AI-S 200mm f/2 EDIF and Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L are wonderful lenses.

--

Ellis Vener
A working photographer since 1984.
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
 
Last edited:
I would love to see a 28/1.4 Z
 
Ruekon said:
TOF guy said:
Ruekon said:
TOF guy said:
Like the one Tamron makes for the Sony FE mount.
Click to expand...
Tamron might offer this lens for the Z mount soon.
Click to expand...
“might” or “might not “
Click to expand...
Tamron may offer this lens for the Z mount soon. :-)
Click to expand...
I am sure executives at Tamron and Sigma are carefully monitoring camera sales numbers, especially in light of what trade publications are reporting about the Z 9 and projections for the R3 and deciding not if but when.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top